This editorial from the NYT pretty much sums up Republican behavior in general and especially this election cycle, No Shame
There are many unanswered questions about the vicious assault in Benghazi last month that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. And Congress has a responsibility to raise them. But Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response.
It doesn’t take a partisan to draw that conclusion. The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.
At a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last Wednesday, Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California and the committee’s chairman, talked of “examining security failures that led to the Benghazi tragedy.” He said lawmakers had an obligation to protect federal workers overseas. On Sunday, he said more should be spent on diplomatic security.
But as part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts.
Imagine if after 9-11 Democrats had called for Bush’s impeachment – as conservatives are doing now for the alleged security failures at the White House. Instead the nation, including the vast majority of Democrats put aside ideological differences to support Bush. Though a few months after the 9-11 attacks, many Democrats, the families of the 9-11 victims and a hand full of Republicans asked for a commission to look into the structural security issues that may have failed in the lead up to 9-11. The Sept 11 attacks occurred in 2001. When did we finally get a commission – after much lobbying and subsequent bad press for Bush and conservatives? Nov. 27, 2002. Bush and Cheney had to be threatened with subpoenas and after Mr. 4th Branch Dick Cheney said they had no constitutional obligation to testify, they finally decided they would testify, but only behind closed doors and not under oath. Top Romney Surrogate Says Romney ‘Should Be Exploiting’ Libya Incident For Political Gain
Top Mitt Romney surrogate Rudy Giuliani admitted that the GOP is accusing President Obama of covering up the violence that led to the death of an American ambassador in Libya for political gain.
During an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point on Monday, the former New York City mayor argued that the administration is purposely delaying investigations into the incident until after the election to “cover up” its own failures. But asked to substantiate the claim, Giuliani became agitated. He announced that he did not have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt or withhold judgment about the incident until a full investigation is complete because the president is a Democrat…
….Republicans have a long history of politicizing acts of terrorism for political advantage: from using the 9/11 terrorist attacks to push the country into a war in Iraq, to portraying Democrats as terrorist sympathizers to score political victories in 2002 and 2004. Giuliani himself ran his presidential campaign on a “noun, verb and 9/11” and Romney’s first political instinct upon learning of violence in Libya was to accuse President Obama of apologizing for terrorism
If and when all else fails the Republican political tool box is full of unsubstantiated claims and attrition errors. The sheer volume and repetition of the accusations magically makes them true. It’s like a middle school brat who just keeps saying they know, they just know. An investigation into Libya might be a good idea, but who is going to head that investigation, Darrell Issa (R-CA) who has already built the piles of straw to carry out the witch burnings once the “trial” is over.
Part of the mindset of conservative billionaires – not necessarily everyone with wealth certainly – is to see themselves as poor victims, Another CEO Threatens To Fire Employees If Obama Wins
And Siegel is not alone in pushing his employees to cast their vote a certain way. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes reported today on another CEO — Arthur Allen of ASG Software Solutions — who said in an email to his employees that they’d only have themselves to blame if they lose their jobs if Obama wins. The email reads, in part:
Many of you have been with ASG for over 5, 10, 15, and even 20 years. As you know, together, we have been able to keep ASG an independent company while still growing our revenues and customers. But I can tell you, if the US re-elects President Obama, our chances of staying independent are slim to none. I am already heavily involved in considering options that make our independence go away, and with that all of our lives would change forever. I believe that a new President and administration would give US citizens and the world the renewed confidence and optimism we all need to get the global economies started again, and give ASG a chance to stay independent. If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th, and we lose our independence as a company, I don’t want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come. [...]
The part about losing their independence as a company seems like pearl clutching at best. The only two things that would threaten their independence are bad management and competition. Which all conservatives fear and one of the reasons that industry backed lobbying and PACS are now an actual career field. If you can’t afford tires for the car, braces for your kid’s teeth, if the neighbor is keeping a dozen pigs in a suburban area not zoned for agriculture you have something to complain about. According to this report from 2010 ASG is making millions,
ASX-listed IT services provider ASG Group has announced a record full year net profit increase of 9 percent to $12.3 million for the year ending 30 June 2010.
Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amoritisation was up 6 percent to $21.6 million, while revenue dipped 5 percent to $120.8 million.
Despite the revenue slump, ASG Group managing director Geoff Lewis was “pleased” and said the integrator has “invested heavily in areas that will lead to strong revenue contribution in future reporting periods”.
The ASG website contains this statement,
Strategic acquisitions are central to ASG’s ability to provide the most diversified range of robust product offerings. In fact, ASG has completed more than 30 acquisitions that have dramatically enhanced distribution synergies, customer diversity, and profitability. ASG also offers its solutions at a rate that averages 30% lower than the list prices of any competitor.
They also mention that they recently bought a Chinese company to increase their cloud storage and back-up capacity. The press release from 2010 also mentions what seems to be an inevitable shoe drop when it comes to conservatives complaining about government, ASG gets some of its millions in profits from, that’s right, gov’mint contracts,
March 31 ASG signs $41m government contract
Jan 19 ASG scoops $23m WA Dept Education win
ASG are just more garden variety conservative pigs at the trough.
The Koch brothers are mentioned in the same article from TPro for the letter they sent to employees that was just an extortion letter. The Kochs acknowledged in a recent interview that they also benefit from large government subsidies, tax breaks and probably government contracts as well. How is it that any segment of the voting public can read the complaints of billionaires not making enough money and keep a straight face. How any one seriously listen to the Kochs talk about Barack Obama’s reelection being the “end” of civilization as we know it and say to themselves, oh yea these guys are rational people. The economy and this country has not been generous to the Kochs, ASG and CEO David Siegel, it has opened up the vault and said here, take the piggish share of the capital produced by America’s labor force.
There are more at the link. If America was a socialist country and we had a choice between a real socialist and any Democrat running for office, Democrats would be trampled. Democrats are obviously, to anyone who is not a right-wing sycophant, not even in the park of being socialists or burdening business profits with taxes or regulations. Now is it that the conservative movement, with its utterly delusional version of reality not been relegated to the dust bin of history with every other radical group of weirdos and freaks. I might not live long enough to see the end result, but the Romney-Koch-Conservative mentality is sewing the seeds of its own destruction, The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent
The reigning elites were acting in their immediate self-interest, but in the longer term, La Serrata was the beginning of the end for them, and for Venetian prosperity more generally. By 1500, Venice’s population was smaller than it had been in 1330. In the 17th and 18th centuries, as the rest of Europe grew, the city continued to shrink.
Quite a few commenters across the intetubes have wondered why president Obama did not call Romney a liar in the first debate. It told plenty of lies certainly. As still other commenters and bloggers have also noted you cannot do that because Romney will just say, am’ not. Paul Waldman has a good if imperfect suggestion for the next debate, Time to Try the “Romney Is Lying” Debate Strategy
What Obama needs is a set of responses that cover the topic at hand, but that all follow a single theme. He needs, to put it bluntly, a single phrase that he will repeat every time he’s refuting a Romney falsehood. It could be something slogan-y, like “That’s another Romney Reinvention,” or could be something simple, like “Once again, Governor Romney thinks he can fool you and get away with it.” It almost doesn’t matter what it is, so long as he repeats it every time. The repetition acts as a signal to the viewers, linking that particular part of the debate to what they’ve already heard. This would not only make Romney’s deceptions the headline of post-debate analyses, it would also probably freak Romney out a bit during the debate.
[ ]…Let’s take an example. During their last debate, one of the lies Romney told was that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.”
…He should have turned to Romney and said, “I’m sorry, did you just say pre-existing conditions are covered under your plan? With all due respect, I’m a little shocked that you would try to deceive people like that. You and I both know that your plan doesn’t cover people with pre-existing conditions. It only does what current law does, which still lets insurance companies deny coverage to millions of Americans. Folks, this is one of the key differences between us on health care, maybe the most important difference of all. The law we passed, Obamacare, starting a year from January will make it illegal for insurance companies to deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. Governor Romney believes insurance companies ought to be able to deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. It’s as simple as that. Now a minute ago, he tried to fool you into thinking he has the same position as I do. But he doesn’t.
Facts are on Obama’s side, but they are not enough. They never are with zealots who are determined to literally create their own reality. You’re lying, here is the details in brief, cut it out. On a national stage that should resonate with swing voters. It might even move them to do some fact checking on their own if they have doubts.